Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility police

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Delete - even ignoring the numbers (which are overwhelmingly in a 'delete' direction), I note that most of the 'keeps' would appear to concur with the fact that this would have been badly in need of a rewrite if the consensus was to keep. As the consensus is to delete, this is obviously a mute point, but one which should be borne in mind if anyone wants to re-create something along similar lines. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility police
Page is a mess, fails WP:BITE and other guidelines on so many levels. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)   User:Geogre/Comic  ''I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.''  — From Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.
 * Comment - how exactly, pray tell, does this "fail WP:BITE"? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like an attack page: although it does not name names it nonetheless takes a battleground mentality and seems overtly hostile in nature. It would be inappropriate to userfy this because we'd be back here in a few weeks most likely.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @903, i.e. 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete civility police and its page ... wait, am I there too? Then just delete the page. East of Borschov 21:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. This is the Nazi-photo guy again; we've had this discussion already. – iridescent  19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. In general, essays deserve considerable tolerance in order to avoid censoring opinion, but this is a short attack piece which (in my opinion) provides no useful contribution to the civility debate. Should it be deleted? Perhaps yes, because an essay created from scratch would be better than an essay starting from here. Geometry guy 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Expresses a valid opinion. "Civility" police are a real problem that won't be resolved anytime soon if we're censoring this stuff.  Access Denied –  talk to me  03:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix any Nazi-shite through normal editing. I see the backstory and author of this, but the issue of the feckin' civility coppers is real, and we ought not be deleting essays as it amounts to a step on the road to burning books, then people... and, ya, I know what Mike said. FWIW, the author should have been indef'd at the last ANI; should have said so.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I don't agree with it, the essay expresses a perspective held by a fair number of editors. Not to go all WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but precedent is that essays are okay even if they are critical of particular groups of editors (see this recent example). Instead of deleting it altogether fix the problems. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Could an admin please revdel the first revision of the page as it contains another Nazi Image? Thanks.  Access Denied –  talk to me  05:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree with a revision deletion; what are your reasons for wanting it it? "Containing Nazi images" is not one of the criteria listed at WP:CFRD.  I think that this tool is used far to much for innocuous stuff that people just don't like. Buddy431 (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (signing late)
 * Nope, we don't revdel such things. The image is perfectly encyclopaedic and appropriate when the context is appropriate; it is used in another article and on other projects. The initial use here is part of the essay's (and user's) history. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also Keep (or if not that, Userfy) this essay; it expresses a valid, if not universally held, viewpoint about Wikipedia. Buddy431 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Iridescent. --John (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with above comments by, in addition provides some wise explanation as to why this should be deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, in projectspace, as it's clearly a view held by more than one person. The last sentence is problematic but if that is removed I see no reason not to keep the page. StrPby (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per iridescent. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but tone down, definitely. Attacking a group of unnamed editors (but we all know who they are) is not acceptable. However, the topic is valid and an general essay on this is not a Bad Thing, per se. The current essay should be written in a less derogatory manner, though. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per NYKevin. Fetchcomms, I don't know who they are (though I think I know who they aren't), and until this can be done in a non-weaselish manner it shouldn't be done at all. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm not going to go around naming people, but you'll see this is a common phenomenon at AN, ANI, and other such related venues. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, Fetchcomms, I've seen those things there--though I would interpret them differently than this essay proposes. As for the camps, I keep forgetting who is in which camp. To make matters simple, editors should have a plus or a minus sign in their signature: plus for with Malleus, minus for against. And I didn't mean to call you out, although I wonder: you didn't sign off with a "happy editing" or "thanks". [expletive redacted] I'm going to slap a civility warning on your talk page, and will see you at ANI. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC) (+/-)


 * Note There is a discussion about possibly inappropriate canvassing regarding this MfD here --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Delete - This article makes it sound as if there is an organized bunch of of police like the Gestapo, who roam around looking to pounce on on talk pages where participants are having a jolly slanging match. With around 700 active sysops and thousands of genuine Wikipedians taking care of the encyclopedia,, I would suggest that  anything bordering on such claims is rather far fetched. I will agree however that  there are often cabals of admins on certain pages who will, and do, bully other editors away. Nevertheless, CCs essay  most defiantly  comes across like a complaint by someone who has an axe to grind, and that  is not what  Wikipedia essays are for. If this essay  is allowed to be kept it could become a precedent and thus encourage every editor with a chip on his/her shoulder to stuff the encyclopedia full of complaints.Kudpung (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. There are certainly editors who perceive others as "Civility Police", and there's possibly a Great Need for an essay about it, but this attempt is irrecoverably bad. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. First rule of civility police is, you don't talk about civility police.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How is thata valid delete reson? ''' Access  Denied  05:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite in a more neutral tone. -- Jayron  32  05:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Any attempt to denigrate use of WP:CIVIL is not helpful. I'm sure there are editors who have inappropriately waved CIVIL in an attempt to help their side of a dispute (and I've seen some in dubious WP:WQA reports), but every aspect of Wikipedia is exploited by someone and there is no evidence that "civility police" are a particular problem. We have WP:5P, and should not have an essay to contradict each point; if there is a need, add some wording to WP:CIVIL. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Attempt to subvert one of the pillars of Wikipedia. People obviously have issues with civility, whether it be their lack of social skills (youth, inexperience, or illness), or mere rudeness. Their behaviour needs coaching, not condoned by pages such as this. I've seen experienced editors, some respected by many, mistake aggression for 'straight-talking'. These are the people who provoke incivility, harming the project by driving away good editors. The idea of civility enforcement as a negative concept is repugnant. Userfy it if you must, but the sentiments expressed must be discredited, as should some of the behaviour of those who will lament its MFD. The JPS talk to me  14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I appreciate this page because I like to be part of the civility police, this doesn't have any relation to any encyclopedic articles at all. Minima  c  ( talk ) 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but definitely tone down so it isn't a personal attack. (Oh the irony.) Divebomb is not British 18:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason to have an article on it, but tone needs to be made less attacking. Derild  49  21  ☼  21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete. Basically an attack page against a group of users who might not even exist for all the context the page gives. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is much that could and should be said about the uneven application of wikipedia's absurd civility policy, but this says none of it. I don't see it as an "attack piece", as several others seem to do, just a waste of space. After all, if these civility police don't really exist then who's being attacked? Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are your grounds for deletion? "Delete per waste of space"? Geometry guy 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I think there should be lots more deletions on that basis, including WP:CIVILITY. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument would be that either (a) over-zealous application of civility policy is a problem, and this trivialises a genuine issue, or (b) it's not a problem, and thus it's inappropriate for it to be subject of a project-space essay. We (rightly) extend leeway for people to keep all kinds of cruft in their userspace provided they're actually doing something useful the rest of the time, but this is a project-space essay, not a "user's personal opinion" piece. – iridescent  00:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contorted arguments. I look forward to the MfD for WP:CIV! Geometry guy 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So do I. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why wait? It's been tried. Jack Merridew 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really much of an effort though, was it. More of a tantrum. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly ;) I'm not much impressed with the current text of this essay; I'd be fine with a reboot. Go for it; it's a wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The current essay is crap, obviously, but so is the distinction between WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Even in this piece of nonsense we've seen the essay characterised as a "personal attack", but against whom exactly? A group that doesn't exist? I agree with Geometry guy's implied criticism above, in that there's probably no very convincing policy-based reason to delete this essay, but deleted it should be. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See also: Cleavland steamer. This is a 'notable' essay topic, sofixit. By keeping the history, we preserve the contribution history of the editor who got this off on the wrong foot. I expect he'll be indef'd if he ever uses a Nazi image that way, again. Didn't George say something at ACE'10 re being called a civ-cop? The essay isn't about him, or anyone with the view that all the well-understood words are out of bounds. I swear, all the fuckin' time, but I don't call people fucking assholes to their face or on this project. I'll switch to if you'll write a new essay ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I eagerly wait for the day that this red link turns blue. ''' Access  Denied  22:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's blow it up and start over. Seriously, some essay other than this may be needed, like the keep comments may assert above, but this isn't it. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Quite a few editors have suggested "Keep but Rewrite.  Now would be a handy time to Rewrite, starting with what we vi people would type :%d. PhGustaf (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A translation for those lucky enough not to have to use vi: "%d" means delete. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * More precisely, the "%" means "the whole file". Geez, Malleus, I thought you were OK if eccentric, but if you're an emacs person I'll have to reconsider. PhGustaf (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I hate emacs even more than I hate vi. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear god, not this one again. :r ascii-art-trout   Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * tabs or spaces? ;) Jack Merridew 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)CC's essay stub is indeed superfluous,  but  he has nevertheless hit  the nail  bang on the head. But it's about  a problem  we all know about. Those who  don't  are the children who just  joined Wikpedia and think their very first  mission is to  police everyone else. I  was once reported to  AN/I for breach  of civility  for placing  a perfectly  justified standard 1st level reminder template on  the tp  of a  tendentious, defrocked child sysop, and was consequently  threatened with  a punitive block  by  an equally  corrupt admin. I'd probably  agree to  a rewrite  but only  if  Malleus does the honours ;) --Kudpung (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't touch this with even the longest available barge pole. There is a very serious issue being touched on here, but this essay misses it by a country mile. Malleus Fatuorum 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even with a Long Lance from 40km? Jack Merridew 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent set for essays seen by some as negative, as established at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delete the junk. I opined for userfication there, but accept that the overwhelming consensus there that allowed retention of WP:JUNK. So what applied there should apply here as well, as what is sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Issues can always be addressed through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUNK calls for the deletion of this page in favor of recreating a better one. Are you sure you want to cite it? :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  07:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ?? You perhaps missed it... as I am not citing WP:JUNK, but am citing the precedent for keeping such as set by the linked MFD. And in reading WP:JUNK, it can be seen that the kept essay refers to deleting junk articles, not essays.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Essays in Wikipedia space are supposed to be useful to the community in some way. I can't see how this brief and vague expression of discontent helps anyone but the author. Rd232 talk 18:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this essay were related to improving the encyclopedia, it would contain recommendations for how editors should act to work better together, or suggestions for how those reading it should think differently about their on-wiki behaviour or the behaviour of others. Or at least some material actually relevant to improving the encyclopedia. Without any such material or attempt to provide such material, it's not even suitable for userspace. Instead of providing suggestions or thought-provoking material about how editors can change their behaviour in a positive way, the essay merely singles out some groups of editors for criticism, and thus it only contributes to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - a "them and us" way of thinking. It is irretrievably a net negative to the project. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy Unhelpful and misleading essay, but OK in user space. Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, just as we would delete a page ridiculing the "notability police" or the "reliable source police". Basically an indirect attack page. If a user confronts another user about incivility, do we want this page being used as a shield, to label them as the "civility police" and part of the problem?  Swarm   X 14:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. Pretty much an attack page and unsuitable for project space - but no reason why the author can't express those opinions in their own space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Disputed single authored opinion.  Wikipedians should be free to express their opinions in their own userspace, even if they don't do it very well according to accepted norms.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Essays are supposed to express the opinions of one or more editors and this does just that. While it may not be the best written or least hostile essay it expresses an opinion that we all have the right to express.--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.